Kudos to Google Search Alerts for pointing me to this week’s Five Day Critique of Informal Learning where Bill Brantley begins with:
For the next five days, I plan to critique Jay Cross’ book on informal learning. Why five days? Because the informal learning model that Cross advocates is just plain bad. Maybe it’s his version of informal learning but I was not all persuaded that this is the future of learning. Informal learning is just another hype-filled, buzzword that pretends to be a radical change from the past but is really bits-and-pieces of other learning methods badly packaged.
As Jay says in his own comment on day one: I am “…looking forward to how this unfolds.”
I’ve read Jay’s book (small print full disclosure: an autographed and free as in beer copy from Jay at Learning2006) and on my initial read I did have the feeling of “not much new here” as I saw the many ideas borrowed, as Bill Brantley notes, from the more recent years of Knowledge Management — the discipline where my more recent roots go deep.
Where I give some credit to Jay is in helping change the conversation. I’ve found his book useful in my own day-job when advocating a more balanced investment between formal and informal. Within the legacy-training group I find myself in, I can achieve more attention using Jay’s book than I would ever be able to with all the KM books stacked on my bookshelf — even though some are written with more rigor.
Consistent with the title and direction of my own modest blog attempt here, I believe in connections (yes, mash-ups) and liberally borrowing…and in having some fun along the way. I believe Jay does that. I also believe in free as in speech and that open debate improves the breed. So, I equally give credit and thanks to Bill Brantley. I find the emerging debate (if that is what is) a refreshing change from the mutual admiration society in other quarters of the learning-blogosphere, even though I happen to agree with Brent’s opinion regarding the other learning-bloggers he mentions.
Photo Credit: Andy Steel
Hi [Ray]! I think the interesting thing here is that we’re really having a conversation about having conversations as a form of learning. I must admit, sorry Jay, that I have not yet read the book. However, I have been following Jay’s blog for quite some time and assume that the book is similar in content, idea, and thought.
And, quite frankly, I don’t see anything in Jay’s blog as a rehash of old theories. Nor do I think its snake oil either.
There is ZERO evidence that supports “formal Learning” as we know it today…classroom…drill and practice, etc…is the best method for learning. THE ONLY REASON people have survived the experience over the years is because of Informal forms/methods of learning. Its been more of a survival instinct than anything else.
I encourage the continued conversation, but can’t help but wonder if I’ve been duped into a scheme of attention seeking by publicly bashing the work of another…a pretty ancient trick of journalists, most commonly found among movie critics.
I’ll be interested to see how this plays out as well…I’ll be looking for the contrarian pattern
Hi Brent,
I’m granting trust to Bill based on my glance through his blog that I’ve (we’ve) not been duped into some sort of publicity game. No such intent on my part either, beyond drawing further attention to a seemingly thoughtful contrarian view. I believe in the value of such contrarian voices to modulate and aid my own understanding and point of view.
I wouldn’t (and didn’t) personally use “rehash” in reference to Jay’s work, rather only that the ideas in the book were familiar to my prior experience outside of a traditional training organization. This is partly a challenge of the bound book…almost by definition not new by the time it is published.
Ray